With all the freaking out about Joe Biden and the debate, I keep thinking about the 1984 presidential election. Ronald Reagan, who was in his mid 70s, had a really weak first debate performance, and the political chattering classes came out wondering if he was too old to be president. The dynamic was just like it is today. There was one major difference, though: in that election, the Republican Party universally rallied around their president, reassuring the press and public that he was just fine. In the next debate, Reagan did better, and their campaign rolled on to one of the most decisive wins in American history, a landslide the size of which we haven’t seen since.
There is something about the culture of our Democratic Party that reacts to a setback with panic instead of steady determination and rallying around the flag. We need to calm ourselves down and buck the f’’k up.
Yeah, I know: Biden wasn’t exactly full of youthful energy at that debate. But I do have a question: did y’all not know he was an old guy? That he would be slow in walking to the podium? That he would stumble over some words? As they might say in Casablanca: how shocked are you that there is gambling in this establishment?
But Democrats should not be so quick to forget another set of facts about Joe Biden: he has been the best and most effective president since FDR. He has passed more major legislation, including more than $4 billion in investments in our people and economy, than any president since the New Deal. He has signed the best set of executive orders of any president maybe ever. His appointees at DOJ, the FTC, the SEC, the NLRB, and other key agencies of government have done more to take on corporate greed, monopoly power, and price gouging than any in almost a century.
Why are we talking about dumping the best president in modern history because he had a weak debate performance and is a little old?
Reagan, the next oldest president in American history, was — unfortunately, because his policies were terrible — the most effective, influential, and successful president in modern history. He went on from that debate stumble not only to win re-election decisively, but to also decisively reshape the way American government has worked in the 40 years since. Joe Biden, unlike the younger and hipper Democratic presidents after Reagan, has begun to finally wrest our government back from the big corporate serving policies of the GOP to a policy agenda that seeks to help working families.
With that track record of success, the idea that Democrats should dump Biden after one shaky debate performance is profoundly wrong. We need to rally around the flag, gang, and fight like warriors to get the best president of our lifetimes re-elected.
And folks, we are positioned to win this election.
We have a far more popular agenda than the right wing’s monstrous proposals. (Google Project 2025 if you want to check out their workshop of horrors.) We have a track record of remarkable legislative and executive branch accomplishments that is superior to any president at least since LBJ. We have a series of powerful issues — abortion rights, health care, green energy jobs, infrastructure, Social Security, veterans benefits, rebuilding our manufacturing base, and taking on Big Pharma, monopoly power, and price gouging — where we have the political high ground. And we are running against the most horribly flawed candidate of all time.
So my fellow Democrats, it is time to stop freaking out and time to stop worrying about one bad debate. We have an election to win and only about four months to do it. Let’s kick our fighting spirit into full gear, and knock on doors, make calls and texts, take our case to social media, reach out to our friends, and give money. Let’s stop worrying and get to winning.
As the late, great Stan Lee would advise, “‘Nuff said.”
Except:
America: Let's #BucktheEffUp and get back into the fight.
From the moment the first African captives arrived on these shores 400 years ago, this land offered white people of every station one ironclad guarantee. Enslaved people were not just property, nor just unpaid agricultural workers and house servants. They’d been assigned a permanent place on the lowest rung of the social ladder. No matter what misfortunes might befall whites, at least they weren’t Black. The New World offered Europeans not only economic opportunity but a guaranteed social floor below which they could not fall.
(Four hundred years later, women still struggle to break through a glass ceiling.)
For some reason, that was on my mind while making coffee. It was on Heather Cox Richardson’s last night in the context of Donald Trump’s comments Thursday night about immigrants taking “Black jobs” and “Hispanic jobs.” It’s a textbook case of the ruling-class, divide-and-dominate ploy from the cartoon above.
In U.S. history it has been commonplace for political leaders to try to garner power by warning their voters that some minority group is coming for their jobs. In the 1840s, Know-Nothings in Boston warned native-born voters about Irish immigrants; in 1862 and 1864, Democrats tried to whip up support by warning Irish immigrants that after Republicans fought to end enslavement, Black Americans would move north and take their jobs. In the 1870s, Californian Denis Kearney of the Workingman’s Party drew voters to his standard by warning that Chinese immigrants were taking their jobs and insisted: “The Chinese Must Go!”
As Tevye the milkman instructed, it’s a tradition, and not a new idea here:
“In all social systems there must be a class to do the menial duties, to perform the drudgery of life,” South Carolina senator James Henry Hammond told his colleagues in 1858. “That is, a class requiring but a low order of intellect and but little skill. Its requisites are vigor, docility, fidelity. Such a class you must have, or you would not have that other class which leads progress, civilization, and refinement. It constitutes the very mud-sill of society and of political government; and you might as well attempt to build a house in the air, as to build either the one or the other, except on this mud-sill.”
Capital produced by the labor of mudsills would concentrate in the hands of the upper class, who would use it efficiently and intelligently to develop society. Their guidance elevated those weak-minded but strong-muscled people in the mudsill class, who were “happy, content, unaspiring, and utterly incapable, from intellectual weakness, ever to give us any trouble by their aspirations.”
Aspirations to sharing power, that is. Allow mudsills to vote and society would “be reconstructed, your government overthrown, your property divided,” Hammond warned.
The only true way to look at the world was to understand that some people were better than others and had the right and maybe the duty, to rule. “I repudiate, as ridiculously absurd, that much-lauded but nowhere accredited dogma of Mr. Jefferson, that ‘all men are born equal’” Hammond wrote, and it was on this theory that some people are better than others that southern enslavers based their proposed new nation.
“Our new government is founded…upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical and moral truth,” Alexander Stephens, vice president of the Confederacy, told supporters.
That this vision for the country ran contrary to the one advanced in the Declaration (nominally, at least) was of no concern. Treating everyone as born equal would violate the implicit contract with whites guaranteed by Black enslavement. The ruling class always places property and contractual rights ahead of human rights.
But not Abraham Lincoln, Richardson reminds:
Arguments that some races are “inferior,” he said, would “rub out the sentiment of liberty in the country, and…transform this Government into a government of some other form.” The idea that it is beneficial for some people to be dominated by others, he said, is the argument “that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world…. Turn in whatever way you will—whether it come from the mouth of a King, an excuse for enslaving the people of his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a reason for enslaving the men of another race, it is all the same old serpent.”
[…]
He went on to tie the mudsill theory to the larger principles of the United States. “I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle and making exceptions to it, where will it stop,” he said. “If that declaration is not the truth, let us get the Statute book, in which we find it and tear it out!” To cries of “No, no,” he concluded to cheers: “Let us stick to it then. Let us stand firmly by it.”
Ironically, ten years after Hammond’s speech, the defeated South was undergoing the sort of economic and social reconstruction he feared. The resistance led by the Ku Klux Klan ensured that Reconstruction would fail. It wasn’t race-hatred that drove them, I’d argue, as much as hatred of the idea that freed Blacks would share power as whites’ equals. That was a violation of the contract that guaranteed a social floor below which no white man, no matter how poor, could fall. Race is a part of that sentiment, but skin color has always been a handy shorthand for telling in any crowd just who’s who in the pecking order. The South had just fought and lost a devastating war to preserve that order. Even whites with no human property fought to preserve it.
If you can convince the lowest white man that he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll even empty his pockets for you. — Sen. Lyndon Baines Johnson of Texas to Bill Moyers (1960)
The promise behind Trump’s pledge to make America “great again” is revealed once again in Trump’s warning that immigrants will take “Black” and “Hispanic” jobs. “Careful, that foreigner wants your cookie,” is his message to nonwhites. The coded message to his nearly all-white MAGA faithful is that, yes, there are still castes of people in this country that represent a social floor below which they can never fall. And Trump promises to guarantee that the mudsills stay there lest society “be reconstructed, your government overthrown, your property divided.”
“Anyone who sees the world through such a lens is on the wrong side of history,” Richardson insists.
More than that, they stand against the very idea behind the flag in which they drape themselves. Remind them every chance you get.
You all know where I stand on the current presidential crisis. For me it’s either Biden or Harris, Nobody else could possibly keep the Democratic coalition together. If it’s the latter Biden should endorse her right away along with every other establishment Democrat and they should all campaign to the convention as if she is the presumptive nominee. (She was presumptively on the ticket that just won the primaries after all and the one that won the election in 2020.) That’s just me. Either stick it out or go with Harris right now as I’ve explained in earlier posts and will explain further in my column tomorrow morning.
Allan Lichtman, the historian who has correctly forecast the results of nine out of the 10 most recent presidential elections argued on Saturday that replacing President Joe Biden could cost Democrats the 2024 election.
Lichtman, a professor at American University, rejected the growing chorus of political pundits and Democratic activists who have called on Biden, 81, to bow out of the presidential race after his disastrous debate performance last week against former President Donald Trump. The pivotal moment brought fresh questions about Biden’s age and ability to serve a second term.
“It’s a huge mistake. They’re not doctors. They don’t know whether Biden is physically capable of carrying out a second term or not,” Lichtman said during an interview with CNN of calls to replace Biden. “This is all foolhardy nonsense.”
Lichtman has correctly predicted the outcome of almost every election over the last half century, except for the race in 2000, using a series of 13 historical factors or “keys.”
The system includes four factors based on politics, seven on performance, and two on candidate personality. Lichtman said the incumbent party would need to lose six of those actors, or “keys,” to lose the White House.
The keys range from whether a candidate is an incumbent president to the state of the economy and the presence of third-party hopefuls.
Debate performance, however, is not one of the factors that determines the outcome of an election, he argued. Lichtman pointed to historical examples, including the 1984 election in which former President Ronald Reagan swept 49 states despite poor debate performances and concerns over his age.
When pressed about whether the questions surrounding Biden’s age and mental acuity are “fundamentally different” than his metrics as president, Lichtman doubled down.
“Debate performances can be overcome,” he said. “At the first sign of adversity the spineless Democrats want to throw under the bus, their own incumbent president. My goodness.”
It may be that history is not a very good guide to this election. I suspect we are in a new political era that runs by a lot of different rules. And the media is out for blood saying they are personally hurt and angry that the White House didn’t share with them the alleged fact that Biden is more or less a vegetable. That’s yet another very difficult barrier to victory since they seem to care more about that than they care about the fact that Donald Trump wants to put them in camps if they don’t do exactly what he wants.
But Lichtman’s been right before and maybe he’s right now. He says that Biden still checks enough boxes for re-election. I thought you should know.
It’s too bad that Aileen Cannon has her thumb on the scale for Trump or he might be on trial right now for this obvious treachery:
A trip to Mar-a-Lago taken by former President Donald Trump that aides allegedly “kept quiet” just weeks before FBI agents searched the property for classified materials in his possession raised suspicions among special counsel Jack Smith’s team as a potential additional effort to obstruct the government’s classified documents investigation, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News.
The previously unreported visit, which allegedly took place July 10-12 in the summer of 2022, was raised in several interviews with witnesses, sources familiar with the matter said, as investigators sought to determine whether it was part of Trump’s broader alleged effort to withhold the documents after receiving a subpoena demanding their return.
At least one witness who worked closely with the former president recalled being told at the time of the trip that Trump was there “checking on the boxes,” according to sources familiar with what the witness told investigators.
A lot has happened in the past few days but one thing hasn’t changed. Donald Trump is a criminal and he’s committed crimes in a dozen different ways. He’s an adjudicated rapist, an admitted sexual assaulter, a fraudster multiple times over, a classified document thief, an insurrectionist coup plotter and a Russian collaborator. His corruption is overwhelming: he’s lines his pockets with hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars and used his political office and candidacy to bribe business leaders and foreign leaders alike.
Let’s not forget what we are dealing with. How to deal with him is suddenly a matter of debate but deal with him we must.
On November 21, 1922, the New York Times published its very first article about Adolf Hitler. It’s an incredible read — especially its assertion that “Hitler’s anti-Semitism was not so violent or genuine as it sounded.” This attitude was, apparently, widespread among Germans at the time; many of them saw Hitler’s anti-Semitism as a ploy for votes among the German masses.
Times correspondent Cyril Brown spendsmost of the piece documenting the factors behind Hitler’s early rise in Bavaria, Germany, including his oratorical skills. For example: “He exerts an uncanny control over audiences, possessing the remarkable ability to not only rouse his hearers to a fighting pitch of fury, but at will turn right around and reduce the same audience to docile coolness.”
But the really extraordinary part of the article is the three paragraphs on anti-Semitism. Brown acknowledges Hitler’s vicious anti-Semitism as the core of Hitler’s appeal — and notes the terrified Jewish community was fleeing from him — but goes on to dismiss it as a play to satiate the rubes (bolding mine):
He is credibly credited with being actuated by lofty, unselfish patriotism. He probably does not know himself just what he wants to accomplish. The keynote of his propaganda in speaking and writing is violent anti-Semitism. His followers are nicknamed the “Hakenkreuzler.” So violent are Hitler’s fulminations against the Jews that a number of prominent Jewish citizens are reported to have sought safe asylums in the Bavarian highlands, easily reached by fast motor cars, whence they could hurry their women and children when forewarned of an anti-Semitic St. Bartholomew’s night.
But several reliable, well-informed sources confirmed the idea that Hitler’s anti-Semitism was not so genuine or violent as it sounded, and that he was merely using anti-Semitic propaganda as a bait to catch masses of followers and keep them aroused, enthusiastic, and in line for the time when his organization is perfected and sufficiently powerful to be employed effectively for political purposes.
A sophisticated politician credited Hitler with peculiar political cleverness for laying emphasis and over-emphasis on anti-Semitism, saying: “You can’t expect the masses to understand or appreciate your finer real aims. You must feed the masses with cruder morsels and ideas like anti-Semitism. It would be politically all wrong to tell them the truth about where you really are leading them.”
Now, Brown’s sources in all likelihood did tell him that Hitler’s anti-Semitism was for show. That was a popular opinion during Nazism’s early days. But that speaks to how unprepared polite German society was for a movement as sincerely, radically violent as Hitler’s to take power.
Yeah. Certainly feels familiar. Particularly when you read things like this from King of the Village Jonathan Allen about the next Trump administration:
[L]awmakers from the capable and normie-filled Dakotas delegation, which includes two former governors, will wield influence on issues ranging from agriculture and energy to banking and national security. Oh, and Burgum’s almost certain successor, Representative Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.), will arrive in Bismarck to lead his state at the end of this year with deeper connections in the nation’s capital than any modern North Dakota governor.
Just to the west, Wyoming’s senior senator, John Barrasso, is in line to be the second-ranking Senate Republican. Montana Sen. Steve Daines, who as head of the Senate GOP campaign arm this year has largely preempted contentious primaries, could become one of the most influential lawmakers in Washington. That’s thanks to his relationships with Trump and Thune — and the wings of the party each represents — as well as his perch on the tax-writing Finance Committee.
Trump has nudged Daines to consider challenging Thune for leader. However, I’m told by multiple Republicans that the Montanan has already pledged to support his neighbor in South Dakota — and that Daines under a Leader Thune will have a carved-out leadership role harnessing the former Proctor & Gamble executive’s business chops as well as his political savvy and Trump friendship. “There’s going to be a leadership spot for Steve when it’s all said and done,” Senator Mike Rounds, South Dakota’s junior senator and Thune’s leading ally, told me.
Taken together, it’s an imposing array of force from such a sparsely populated corner of the country. Until Montana’s growth recently netted them a second seat, all four states were represented by an at-large House member.
More remarkable is how many of the leading Republicans from the region emerged in the pre-Trump era and, while submitting to varying levels of accommodation, have avoided the bomb-throwing style so many in their party have adopted to keep with current fashions. (The MAGA-obsessed Noem is the notable exception.) “We’re normal,” said Rounds, adding: “It’s not a hard hard-right. We’re Ronald Reagan Republicans.”
Indeed, you could drop most of them in the GOP of 1984 or 2004 and they’d fit right in.“We all kind of sound alike,” Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.) told me, and he wasn’t just referring to their straight-out-of-Fargo accents. “It’s tonal and if you watch Fox News, it doesn’t sound like us.”
What Johnson and so many of the other traditional Republicans from the region are wondering though, is how long can it last. “Are we just lagging behind the populist change or are we going to continue to be different?” he asked. “That to me is the central question. And I don’t really know the answer.”
What I’m more immediately interested in if Republicans do take over Washington next year is whether the “Prairie Pragmatists,” as Johnson calls them, will shape or simply be shaped by the Trump restoration. Perhaps it’s not an either-or distinction. Maybe the more likely outcome is the same Trumpian chaos and bombast while the mild-mannered Scandinavians step cautiously and do what they do best: present as wholly guileless, doncha know, while they hustle furiously.
The Village says it’s going to be fine. Don’t you worry. Real Americans in the Dakotas have a whole boatload of Great Whitebread Hopes ready to save us from Trump and the MAGA hordes. Relax. Just let it happen.
*BTW: Barasso and Daines are hardcore MAGA freaks.
Taylor Swift is now the most influential celebrity in America. Her popularity is staggering, and her position as a cultural colossus is unquestionable.
At 34, Swift remains unmarried and childless, a fact that some might argue is irrelevant to her status as a role model. But, I suggest, it’s crucial to consider what kind of example this sets for young girls. A role model, by definition, is someone worthy of imitation. While Swift’s musical talent and business acumen are certainly admirable, even laudable, we must ask if her personal life choices are ones we want our sisters and daughters to emulate. This might sound like pearl-clutching preaching, but it’s a concern rooted in sound reasoning.
Here’s that sound reasoning:
Swift’s highly publicized romantic life has been a source of prime tabloid fodder for years. She has dated numerous high-profile men—at least a dozen—including the singers Harry Styles and Joe Jonas, the actor Jake Gyllenhaal, and, more recently, the American football player Travis Kelce. This revolving door of relationships may reflect the normal dating experiences of many young women in today’s world, but it also raises questions about stability, commitment, and even love itself. Should we encourage young girls to see the “Swift standard” as the norm, something to aspire to? Or should we be promoting something a little more, shall we say, wholesome? Would any loving parent reading this want their daughter to date 12 different men in the span of just a few years? This is not an attack on Swift; it’s a valid question that is worth asking.
The superstar’s vocal criticisms of the patriarchy add another layer of complexity. Swift’s recent rallying cry against patriarchal structures stands in stark contrast to her personal dating choices. The singer often dates strong, influential men—celebrities who embody significant social and economic power. This can appear hypocritical. Hypocrisy fundamentally undermines the ability to be a good role model because it involves a contradiction between one’s actions and the principles or values they publicly advocate. Swift either doesn’t realize this or doesn’t care. Neither of the two is a good look.
I’m just going to leave that here for you to contemplate.
BURGUM: Donald Trump at the end of his term left the White House. We had a smooth transition.
WELKER: January 6 wasn't exactly a smooth transition.
BURGUM: Well, I think we have to say there was a smooth transition … I've been living under what I call the Biden dictatorship. pic.twitter.com/FMjDdbGSYz
The “Biden is a basket case but also Joseph Stalin” line is more unsustainable than ever. But I guess they’re still rolling with it. Also, the transition was anything but smooth. Even aside from the obvious — the coup attempt and insurrection —they wouldn’t hold meetings for the new team to prepare, Trump refused the normal courtesy of meeting the Biden’s at the White house and he churlishly refused to attend the inauguration, It was a shitshow from beginning to end.
The relatively muted response from Republicans in the wake of the debate is curious and very unlike them. Dancing on graves is their favorite pastime. Maybe they’re thrown off by the Democrats’ hysterics and don’t yet know how to respond? I suppose it’s possible they’re following the old “when your opponent is destroying himself, let him” but that would be unusual too. Piling on is their second favorite pastime. Weird.
We got some Dear Leader tweets from Steven Miller early on but he’s just been doing his standard grotesque immigrant bashing the last day or so.
Trump put out this whine yesterday:
Poor Trumpie. Nobody’s paying attention to him right now. They’re saying Biden did poorly instead of acknowledging that he’s the bestest and the biggest and the greatest debater who ever lived. Somebody bring him a diet coke and a binky.
Honestly, I have no idea what’s going through their heads but if I had to guess they just don’t know whether to root for Biden to step down or stay in so they’re paralyzed.
U.S. Navy SEAL qualification training (SQT) students fire their M4A1 carbines from the prone position during a 36-round shooting test. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Michelle Kapica/Release
The New York Times has a devastating article about a pattern of brain injury in soldiers that’s gone unrecognized for years. “Shell shock” is a colloquial term not used these days. PTSD has replaced it. Ironically, the original term could be more accurate.
The story examines a pattern of suicides among elite combat troops, Navy SEALs, some of whom have never been injured (gifted article):
The military readily acknowledges that traumatic brain injury is the most common injury from recent conflicts. But it is struggling to understand how many of those injuries are inflicted by the shock waves unleashed by troops’ own triggers.
[…]
People’s brains can often compensate until injuries accumulate to a critical level, {Dr. Daniel Daneshvar, chief of brain injury rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School] said; then, “people kind of fall off a cliff.”
Examination during autopsy of SEALs’ brains after suicide have revealed microscopic damage invisible to MRIs and not seen among civilians.
Combat never seemed to faze Mr. Collins, but near the end of his Navy career, he started to change in subtle ways that Ms. Collins pieced together only in retrospect. He began to avoid social gatherings. He struggled to sleep. He started to make strange, obsessive family schedules and become irritated when they were not followed. Some simple chores, like raking leaves into a tarp, started to confound him. He would step out the door to go to work, realize that he had forgotten his keys, go back inside to get them and then forget why he had returned.
All were signs of brain injury. But at the time, the military generally associated brain injury with big blasts from roadside bombs — something Mr. Collins never experienced. No one was telling the troops that repeated exposure to routine blasts from their own weapons might be a risk.
Mr. Collins’s mental health took a sudden plunge when he was 45. He had left the Navy and started a civilian job teaching troops to operate small drones. One morning, well before the sun was up, he called his wife in a panic from a work trip, saying he had forgotten how to do his job and had not slept in four days.
Since I just posted about being an engineer, when I began reading the following section I knew where it was going before it got there:
Dr. Perl said privacy rules bar him from discussing specific cases, but members of the families who provided brains to study say the lab found interface astroglial scarring in six of the eight SEALs who died by suicide. The other two SEALs, including Lieutenant Metcalf, had a different type of damage in the same blast-affected areas. Star-shaped helper cells called astrocytes in their brains appeared to have been repeatedly injured and had grown into gargantuan, tangled masses that barely functioned. The lab plans to publish findings on the astrocyte injuries soon.
Recent studies suggest that damage is caused when energy waves surging through the brain bounce off tissue boundaries like an echo, and for a few fractions of a millisecond, create a vacuum that causes nearby liquid in the brain to explode into bubbles of vapor. Those tiny explosions are violent enough to blow brain cells apart in a process known as cavitation.
Firing thousands and thousands of rounds from rifles tucked next to their cheeks in training if not in actual combat have left these men scarred in ways only a microscope can reveal. But their spouse and families see it in their behavior.
The men who died by suicide represent only a small fraction of the career SEALs with signs of brain injuries after years around blasts.
Now what? Energy weapons?
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
For The Win, 5th Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free countywide GOTV planning guide at ForTheWin.us.
Bryan Schott covers politics for the Salt Lake Tribune.
The James Fallows tweet Digby cited about SCOTUS overturning the 40-year-old Chevron doctrine was an eye-opener. The SCOTUS decision hands highly technical decisions about regulations to courts. Fallows was so succinct and instructive that I’m reposting him here:
A salesperson asked me on Tuesday what I did before retirement. I told him I reviewed the material stresses and reaction forces in high-temperature, high-pressure piping systems, pressure vessels, and rotating equipment for compliance with ASME codes (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) using finite element analysis. Which is why my cocktail party answer more often was, “I design factories.” In a more ironic mood, I’d reply, “Clients pay a lot of money to ignore what I tell them.”
Do my job poorly and expensive equipment gets damaged and millions of dollars in production are lost. Do the job badly and people might die.
Regulation decisions SCOTUS just put in the hands of judges are often conservative. Especially those regarding safety, like OSHA regulations. They are conservative for a reason, as Fallows points out.
In one maintenance accident at a site I worked, 600 °F molten polymer spewed from an “empty” pipe onto a worker who’d just removed his “hot work” gear to repair a pump. After the goop cooled, they had to chip his body off the concrete floor with a jackhammer. I’ll admit I was relieved that it wasn’t any system I’d reviewed.
I spent one fine morning at another site in a safety briefing on all the chemicals on site that might kill you. You always looked to the wind socks on the towers to see which way the wind was blowing so you could run in the other direction if the site evacuation siren went off. But here they warned that if you were up in the production structure when the siren went off and saw a green cloud below, “Don’t go down into the green cloud.” The end product was nontoxic powder used in paint pigment. It’s the “M” on your M&Ms.
ASME codes are private. But violate them at your legal peril. Or maybe not. SCOTUS just handed judges the authority to decide if government regulations saying you ought to comply with them are too restrictive. You know, because allowing government experts to interpret regulations they are tasked with administering is “fundamentally misguided,” says Chief Justice John Roberts. Ask him what he knows about finite element analysis.
Since it’s now officially summer, I thought it would be a good excuse to curate a list of my top 10 seasonal favorites; movies that I think capture the essence of these “lazy, hazy, crazy” days…infused with the sights, the sounds, the smells, of summer. So, here you go…as per usual, in alphabetical order:
Jazz on a Summer’s Day– Bert Stern’s groundbreaking documentary about the 1958 Newport Jazz Festival is not so much a “concert film” as it is a fascinating and colorful time capsule of late 50s American life. Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of gorgeously filmed numbers spotlighting the artistry of Thelonius Monk, Anita O’Day, Dinah Washington, Louis Armstrong, etc. and the performances are outstanding.
The effect is like “being there” in 1958 Newport on a languid summer’s day. If you’ve ever attended an outdoor music festival, you know half the fun is people-watching, and Stern obliges. Stern breaks with film making conventions of the era; this is the genesis of the cinema verite music documentary, which wouldn’t come to full flower until a decade later with films like Don’t Look Back, Monterey Pop, Woodstock and Gimme Shelter.
Last Summer– This underrated 1969 gem is from the husband-and-wife film making team of director Frank Perry and writer Eleanor Perry (who adapted from Evan Hunter’s novel). On the surface, it’s a character study about three friends on the cusp of adulthood (Bruce Davison, Barbara Hershey and Richard Thomas) who develop a Jules and Jim-style relationship during an idyllic summer vacation on Fire Island. When a socially awkward stranger (Catherine Burns) bumbles into this simmering cauldron of raging hormones and burgeoning sexuality, it blows the lid off the pressure cooker, leading to unexpected twists. Think Summer of ’42 meets Lord of the Flies; I’ll leave it there. Beautifully acted and directed. In 2022, Davison and Thomas appeared in Season 4 of the Netflix series Ozark (although they didn’t share any scenes).
Mid-August Lunch– This slice-of-life charmer from Italy, set during the mid-August Italian public holiday known as Ferragosto, was written and directed by Gianni Di Gregorio (who also co-scripted the 2009 gangster drama Gomorra).
Di Gregorio casts himself as Giovanni, an easy-going middle-aged bachelor living in Rome with his elderly mother. He doesn’t work, because as he tells a friend, taking care of mama is his “job”.
One day, his landlord drops in. He wants to take a weekend excursion with his mistress and asks for a “small” favor. In exchange for forgiveness on back rent, he requests Giovanni take a house guest for the weekend-his elderly mother. Giovanni agrees, but is chagrined when the landlord turns up with two little old ladies (he hadn’t mentioned his aunt). Soon after, Giovanni’s doctor makes a house call; in lieu of a service charge he asks Giovanni if he doesn’t mind taking on his dear old mama as well (Ferragosto is a popular “getaway” holiday in Italy).
It’s the small moments that make this film such a delight. Giovanni reading Dumas aloud to his mother, until she quietly nods off in her chair. Two friends, sitting in the midday sun, enjoying white wine and watching the world go by. In a scene that reminded me of a classic sequence in Fellini’s Roma, Giovanni and his pal glide us through the streets of Rome on a sunny motorcycle ride. This mid-August lunch might offer you a limited menu, but you’ll find every morsel worth savoring.
Mommy is at the Hairdresser’s- Set at the beginning of an idyllic Quebec summer, circa 1966, Lea Pool’s beautifully photographed drama centers around the suburban Gauvin family. A teenager (Marianne Fortier) and her little brothers are thrilled that school’s out for summer. Their loving parents appear to be the ideal couple; Mom (Celine Bonnier) is a TV journalist and Dad (Laurent Lucas) is a medical microbiologist. A marital infidelity precipitates a separation, leaving the kids in the care of their well-meaning but now titular father, and young Elise finds herself the de facto head of the family. This is a perfect film about an imperfect family; a bittersweet paean to the endless summers of childhood lost.
Smiles of a Summer Night– “Lighthearted romp” and “Ingmar Bergman” are not normally synonymous, but it applies to this wise, drolly amusing morality tale from the director whose name is synonymous with somber dramas. Bergman regular Gunnar Bjornstrand heads a fine ensemble, as an amorous middle-aged attorney with a young wife (whose “virtue” remains intact) and a free-spirited mistress, who juggles a few lovers herself. As you may guess, this leads to amusing complications.
Love in all its guises is represented by a bevy of richly drawn characters, who converge in a third act set on a sultry summer’s eve at a country estate (the inspiration for Woody Allen’s A Midsummer Night’s Sex Comedy). Fast-paced, literate, and sensuous, it has a muted cry here and a whisper there of that patented Bergman “darkness”, but compared to most of his oeuvre, this one is a veritable screwball comedy.
Stand By Me– Director Rob Reiner was on a roll in the mid-to late 80s, delivering five exceptional films, book-ended by This is Spinal Tap in 1984 and When Harry Met Sally in 1989. This 1986 dramedy was in the middle of the cycle. Based on a Stephen King novella (adapted by Raynold Gideon and Bruce A. Evans) it’s a bittersweet “end of summer” tale about four pals (Wil Wheaton, River Phoenix, Corey Feldman and Jerry O’Connell) who embark on a search for the body of a missing teenager, during the course of which they learn hard life lessons. Reiner coaxes extraordinary performances from the young leads, and Richard Dreyfus provides the narration.
Summer Wars– Don’t be misled by the cartoon title of Mamoru Hosoda’s eye-popping movie-this could be the Gone with the Wind of Japanese anime. OK…that’s a tad hyperbolic. But it does have drama, romance, comedy, and war-centering around a summer gathering at a bucolic family estate. Tokyo Story meets War Games? At any rate, it’s one of the finer animes of recent years. While some narrative devices in Satoko Ohuder’s screenplay will feel familiar to anime fans (particularly the “cyber-punk” elements), it’s the humanist touches and subtle social observations (reminiscent of Yasujiro Ozu’s films) that makes it unique and worthwhile.
A Summer’s Tale– It’s nearly 8 minutes into Eric Rohmer’s romantic comedy before anyone utters a word; and it’s a man calling a waitress over to order a chocolate crepe. But not to worry, because things are about to get much more interesting.
In fact, our young man, an introverted maths grad named Gaspar (Melvil Poupaud), who is killing time in sunny Dinard until his “sort of” girlfriend arrives to join him on summer holiday, will soon find himself in a dizzying girl whirl. It begins when he meets bubbly and outgoing Margo (Amanda Langlet) an ethnologist major who is spending her summer break waitressing at her aunt’s seaside creperie. Margo is also (sort of) spoken for, with a boyfriend (currently overseas). A friendship blooms. But will they stay “just friends”?
Originally released in France in 1996, this film (which didn’t make its official U.S. debut until 2014) rates among the late director’s best work (strongly recalling Pauline at the Beach, which starred a then teenage Langlet, who is wonderful here as the charming Margo).
In a way, this is a textbook “Rohmer film”, which I define as “a movie where the characters spend more screen time dissecting the complexities of male-female relationships than actually experiencing them”. Don’t despair; it won’t (as Gene Hackman’s character in Night Moves states regarding a Rohmer film) be akin to “watching paint dry”. Even a neophyte will glean the director’s ongoing influence (particularly if you’ve seen Once,When Harry Met Sally, or Richard Linklater’s “Before” trilogy).
Tempest– “Show me the magic.” Nothing says “idyllic” like a Mediterranean getaway, which provides the backdrop for Paul Mazursky’s seriocomic 1982 update of Shakespeare’s classic play.
His Prospero is a harried Manhattan architect (John Cassavetes) who spontaneously quits his firm, abandons his wife (Gena Rowlands), packs up his teen daughter (Molly Ringwald) and retreats to a Greek island for an open-ended sabbatical. He soon adds a young lover (Susan Sarandon) and a Man Friday (Raul Julia) to his entourage. But will this idyll inevitably be steamrolled by the adage: “Wherever you go…there you are”?
The pacing lags a little bit on occasion, but superb performances, gorgeous scenery and bits of inspired lunacy (like a choreographed number featuring Julia and his sheep dancing to “New York, New York”) make up for it.
3 Women– If Robert Altman’s haunting 1977 character study plays like a languid, sun-baked California fever dream…it’s because it was (the late director claimed that the story came to him in his sleep). What ended up on the screen not only represents Altman’s best, but one of the best American art films of the 1970s.
The women are Millie (Shelly Duvall), a chatty physical therapist, considered a needy bore by everyone except her childlike roommate/co-worker Pinky (Sissy Spacek), who worships the ground she walks on, and enigmatic Willie (Janice Rule), a pregnant artist who only paints anthropomorphic lizard figures (empty swimming pools as her canvas). As the three personas slowly merge (bolstered by fearless performances from the three leads), there’s little doubt that Millie, Pinky and Willie hail from the land of Wynken, Blynken and Nod.
